In most of the available NASA promo material of the new SLS, they show both versions in a kind of Saturn-clad black blocks on white surface appearance. I presume it is just done to win the hearts of all those "I just wanna see them shuttles flying again" people but I think without the tons of black and white paint the payload capacities will increase dramatically. Realistically, will the SLS rockets be pristine white or brown bodied?

In most of the available NASA promo material of the new SLS, they show both versions in a kind of Saturn-clad black blocks on white surface appearance. I presume it is just done to win the hearts of all those "I just wanna see them shuttles flying again" people but I think without the tons of black and white paint the payload capacities will increase dramatically. Realistically, will the SLS rockets be pristine white or brown bodied?

The black and white stripes are roll reference marks so that they can tell from tracking camera imagery the roll angle and rate of the vehicle. That trace all the way back to peenemünde and has nothing to do with the appearance of the shuttles.

It's still to be determined if the tankage will be uncoated SOFI or will require a topcoat.

If new SSME's ( or expendable version ) are produced for SLS when will the production start?

Well, if there are 15 SSME's left over from STS, and SLS uses 4 for the first flights, then that's 3 flights at least with the existing stock. First flight 2017, one flight every two years, so add six years = 2024. Maybe they'd want to mix one RS-25E in with the RS-25D's so you might need a flight rated one in 2024. Figure two years lead time, so 2022. That'd be my guess.

Production of non-flight rated, sacrificial offerings to the turbopump and combustion chamber gods would have to occur sometime in this decade.

If new SSME's ( or expendable version ) are produced for SLS when will the production start?

Well, if there are 15 SSME's left over from STS, and SLS uses 4 for the first flights, then that's 3 flights at least with the existing stock. First flight 2017, one flight every two years, so add six years = 2024. Maybe they'd want to mix one RS-25E in with the RS-25D's so you might need a flight rated one in 2024. Figure two years lead time, so 2022. That'd be my guess.

Production of non-flight rated, sacrificial offerings to the turbopump and combustion chamber gods would have to occur sometime in this decade.

So SSME production would not most likely start until we were within three years of the first SLS block 1A launch?

So most likely there will be no more than three SLS block 1 launches?How many flight ready 5 segment SRB's will be made?How hard is it to make more 5 seg SRB's if needed after the first production run for the first few SLS block 1 flights?

I think without the tons of black and white paint the payload capacities will increase dramatically.

The payload would not be impacted dramatically by paint. According to Wikipedia, Shuttle saved about 600 lbs after the first couple flights by not painting the tank; SLS probably won't save more than about half a ton.

So SSME production would not most likely start until we were within three years of the first SLS block 1A launch?

So most likely there will be no more than three SLS block 1 launches?How many flight ready 5 segment SRB's will be made?How hard is it to make more 5 seg SRB's if needed after the first production run for the first few SLS block 1 flights?

Really just guessing based on the 2017 inaugural launch date. I'm sure there's a lot more on L2, but my sub ran out. Didn't Jim say they (NASA) have yet to sign a contract with any manufacturer for SLS? Certainly no one's going to build anything without getting paid for it.

A couple of days ago, my brother and I, both avid nerds and space obsessed, were debating on the Dual-Launch profile of an SLS Moon landing. Our question was, Wouldn't it be more economically sound to just have kept with the Ares 1 and V, possibly IV, for a dual launch, instead of launching two SLS Heavy Lifters...?

Logged

Bragging Rights: Can Successfully Land A Shuttle at the KSC Visitor Center.... Knows too many buttons in the cockpits. Member of the FTC 5095 Team.

A couple of days ago, my brother and I, both avid nerds and space obsessed, were debating on the Dual-Launch profile of an SLS Moon landing. Our question was, Wouldn't it be more economically sound to just have kept with the Ares 1 and V, possibly IV, for a dual launch, instead of launching two SLS Heavy Lifters...?

Trick question. The answer is neither. But two launches of a common vehicle is better than two launches of dissimilar vehicles, which would have higher costs infrastructure.

Can someone please tell me how many and what kind of layers the sls core stage is made of? In particular I want to know what role has the intertank and if there is any particular external fairing/bulkhead or metal structure that take care of all the loads.

NSF has so much content, so I'm not necessarily asking for a response, but perhaps a link to a thread or a nudge in the right area to search.

1. Why is SLS so expensive, and is it too expensive for what it is, or is it exactly what we should expect for a system of its size and capability?

2. Is there a review or discussion about why we need it, here on NSF (even L2) or on the internet (the more recent the better)? I am a firm believer that SLS is the right way to go for NASA for BEO exploration, but I would like to have some more facts or the opinions of those more knowledgeable than me to back this up.

Those two questions have started many threads, and caused even more threads to be locked. I'll try to limit myself to answers that most commenters here would agree on.

1. Big rockets, historically, have been very expensive. There is not much to compare with, and the full costs for Saturn V and especially Energia are hard to find, but it is many billions of dollars. On the one hand building something large means that existing facilities may not be adequate, so you have to build new factories/test stands/manufacturing tools/transport infrastructure. On the other hand there are fewer launches to spread the development costs.

For SLS specifically the first argument was supposed to be invalid, because the tools and infrastructure from the Space Shuttle supply chains are reused. The amount of reuse may have been exaggerated, or deciding you are going to reuse the same contractors before starting contract negotiations may have lead to bad deals. There is also a significant group who believe the reuse requirement was only added in to secure employment and contracts for the existing aerospace manufacturers, by the senators and congressmen in whose districts they are located.

2. The two unique qualities of SLS are heavy payload delivery and a very large fairing. In-orbit refueling could reduce the need for the first, in-orbit assembly could be an alternative for the second. But both bring along their own technical challenges which need their own threads or forum sections to discuss.

NSF has so much content, so I'm not necessarily asking for a response, but perhaps a link to a thread or a nudge in the right area to search.

1. Why is SLS so expensive, and is it too expensive for what it is, or is it exactly what we should expect for a system of its size and capability?

I'd say it's too expensive for the capability it provides, especially since there is no clear plan for using the capability. See the critique of SLS's (and Orion's) costs by the Space Access Society attached to this post.

Quote

2. Is there a review or discussion about why we need it, here on NSF (even L2) or on the internet (the more recent the better)? I am a firm believer that SLS is the right way to go for NASA for BEO exploration, but I would like to have some more facts or the opinions of those more knowledgeable than me to back this up.

There's lots and lots of discussion of the topic here and all over the internet. I think it's very revealing, though, that, to best of my knowledge, there are just two official attempts at justifying SLS. One is in the Senate authorization act that created and defined SLS in 2010 (attached). The senators just said SLS was a good idea without being very specific how they'd come to that conclusion, without saying what alternatives they had considered and without any visible input from technically-qualified experts.

The other attempt at an official justification that I'm aware of was made at a seminar entitled "Removing Barriers to Deep Space Exploration" in November 2013. A NASA official--I can't remember whether it was Bill Gerstenmeier--pointed to the interest expressed by Dennis Tito's project Inspiration Mars in using an SLS launch as evidence that an SLS-like vehicle really is needed (some discussion here). This was such an incredibly weak justification that all by itself it's almost enough to convince me that SLS is a bad idea. I mean, if NASA, wouldn't you think that NASA would rely on its own very capable engineers to assess launch vehicles rather than relying on statements from a very marginal third-party effort? We don't even know whether Inspiration Mars's interest an an SLS launch might have been entirely motivated by the hope that it could get the launch for free, since it would be SLS's first flight.

Contrast the decision to build SLS with the Apollo mode decision of 1962, when NASA decided to go to the moon with lunar orbit rendezvous rather than with earth orbit rendezvous or with a direct flight to the lunar surface. Back then, the [ir]engineers[/i] analyzed the options, argued about them, and finally chose lunar orbit rendezvous. You can read all about it. The politicians reviewed the decision and could have overturned it, but the didn't.

If new SSME's ( or expendable version ) are produced for SLS when will the production start?

Well, if there are 15 SSME's left over from STS, and SLS uses 4 for the first flights, then that's 3 flights at least with the existing stock. First flight 2017, one flight every two years, so add six years = 2024. Maybe they'd want to mix one RS-25E in with the RS-25D's so you might need a flight rated one in 2024. Figure two years lead time, so 2022. That'd be my guess.

Production of non-flight rated, sacrificial offerings to the turbopump and combustion chamber gods would have to occur sometime in this decade.

They just built a 16th engine last year from service parts of the STS program. The newest engine is ME-2063, its sister ME-2062 was built back in 2010. Neither engine has have been fired yet. This will occur this year. Both of these engines are scheduled to be used together on EM-2/SLS-2.The other 14 Main Engines are veterans all of which have flight time under their belts(or bells).

Here is a video of ME-2063 being built.

Here is a list of the missions that these engines last flew on. This is copied from another one of my posts, so is not new info to the board.

Is the configuration of SLS/Ares V (large hydrolox core with large solid boosters) mostly a result of the need to use existing shuttle infrastructure, or is it a reasonable HLV design in it's own right?

I have been reading various threads on this site about possible timelines in which the shuttle had not been developed, and instead there had been a continuation of Saturn IB or the various INT proposals, building Skylab style stations in LEO etc. What I'm wondering is, in such a timeline if NASA were to want to develop a new HLV, would they ever consider something like SLS? Or would it make more sense to just start making Saturn Vs again?

I would assume a lot would depend on exactly what infrastructure was in place, so if F-1 and J-2 engines were already being produced, Saturn V would seem like a better idea than developing huge new SRBs and powerful hydrolox engines like the RS-25 or RS-68. But let's assume that those engines are available, (or maybe 4xUA1207s could be used instead of Shuttle SRBs etc), would there be any reason to favour one design over the other?

Sorry for the convoluted nature of this question, I guess what I'd really like to know is how much of the SLS design is based on the political necessity of using Shuttle technology and how much is it an actual good solution, all other things being equal?

NASA considered Saturn-like HLVs during the requirements analysis cycle (RAC); snoop around, and you'll find lots of discussions about that on this site. There were three separate efforts, RAC-1, looking at Shuttle-derived HLVs, RAC-2 for Saturn-like HLVs, and RAC-3 for "modular" HLVs, i.e., those using multiple small-diameter cores tied together, like a Falcon Heavy on steroids.

NASA found that while RAC-1 designs had lower development costs, RAC-2 vehicles had better economics in the long run, if I remember correctly. RAC-3 designs, each involving multiple independent cores and numerous separation events, were found to be insufficiently reliable and powerful. (By the way, it's a common misunderstanding that the RAC-3 designs were evolved EELVs: they were not).

So, I think the answer is that an SLS-like design results from the desire to use Shuttle infrastructure.

It seems to me that a basic problem with the core-plus-boosters style (e.g., SLS) is that, because the core is carried virtually all the way to orbit, maximum performance is critical. It is crucial that it be as light as possible and that its engines function efficiently both at sea level and in a vacuum. Every extra kilogram on the core is a kilogram of payload lost. That may not be so bad, at least in the long run, for a reusable system, but if you throw the core away on each flight it makes for poor economics. With a classic two-stages-to-orbit design, on the other hand, a kilogram of extra mass on the first stage might take only 0.1 kg off the payload to orbit. Performance is not so crucial, and there ought to be more scope for making things cheaper. A while ago, I took a stab at demonstrating this quantitatively.

Aside from the Shuttle and its offspring, SLS, the only other rocket I can think of that carried its core to orbit is Energia. It too was designed to carry a shuttle.

EDIT: The original stage-and-a-half Atlas carried its core all the way to orbit as well. That design was driven by a USAF requirement in the early 1950s that all engines be ignited on the ground.

Sputnik rocket (8K74PS) also ignited everything at launch. Originally air lighting an engine was not trivial (still isn't) and ground lit was the safest choice. Just look at the Molnyia rocket issues with the upper stage.

Is the configuration of SLS/Ares V (large hydrolox core with large solid boosters) mostly a result of the need to use existing shuttle infrastructure, or is it a reasonable HLV design in it's own right?

SLS is the design you end up with when you start with RS-25 engines. They are such high-performers that the optimum design wants them to burn a lot of propellant. High-thrust boosters are needed to get the resulting "sustainer" stage started.

If NASA didn't have a stockpile of RS-25 engines, it wouldn't have developed SLS. As Proponent mentioned, the RAC-2 kerosene/LOX designs had lower long-term costs, but, critically, they would have cost more to develop because the needed engines didn't exist. RS-25 did exist. Thus SLS.

Is the configuration of SLS/Ares V (large hydrolox core with large solid boosters) mostly a result of the need to use existing shuttle infrastructure, or is it a reasonable HLV design in it's own right?

... the RAC-2 kerosene/LOX designs had lower long-term costs, but, critically, they would have cost more to develop because the needed engines didn't exist.

... and Aerojet/Rocketdyne, the maker of the RS-25, is building AR-1, at government expense, which was one of the "needed engines", that will soon exist ... and might not have a use.

SLS is the design you end up with when you start with RS-25 engines. They are such high-performers that the optimum design wants them to burn a lot of propellant. High-thrust boosters are needed to get the resulting "sustainer" stage started.

Wouldn't it make quite a good upper stage engine for an HLV? More than double the thrust of J-2 used on Saturn V, and 30s better ISP.

SLS is the design you end up with when you start with RS-25 engines. They are such high-performers that the optimum design wants them to burn a lot of propellant. High-thrust boosters are needed to get the resulting "sustainer" stage started.

Wouldn't it make quite a good upper stage engine for an HLV? More than double the thrust of J-2 used on Saturn V, and 30s better ISP.

Unlike the J-2, the SSME is a booster engine as it can't be air-started. It relies very much on GSE to be kept inside its start-box of temperatures and pressures. NASA found this out a decade ago when they wanted a common upper-stage engine for the Ares 1 and Ares 5. When they lost the SSME, they were forced into an expensive redesign of Ares 1 from its intended 4-segment RSRM/SSME US design to the 5-segment SRB/J-2X US we now know.

SLS is the design you end up with when you start with RS-25 engines. They are such high-performers that the optimum design wants them to burn a lot of propellant. High-thrust boosters are needed to get the resulting "sustainer" stage started.

Wouldn't it make quite a good upper stage engine for an HLV? More than double the thrust of J-2 used on Saturn V, and 30s better ISP.

SLS is the design you end up with when you start with RS-25 engines. They are such high-performers that the optimum design wants them to burn a lot of propellant. High-thrust boosters are needed to get the resulting "sustainer" stage started.

Wouldn't it make quite a good upper stage engine for an HLV? More than double the thrust of J-2 used on Saturn V, and 30s better ISP.

Cannot be airstarted without an expensive, major redesign.

Ah cheers. I guess that also contributes how it lends itself to being used as a sustainer engine.

Is the configuration of SLS/Ares V (large hydrolox core with large solid boosters) mostly a result of the need to use existing shuttle infrastructure, or is it a reasonable HLV design in it's own right?

... the RAC-2 kerosene/LOX designs had lower long-term costs, but, critically, they would have cost more to develop because the needed engines didn't exist.

... and Aerojet/Rocketdyne, the maker of the RS-25, is building AR-1, at government expense, which was one of the "needed engines", that will soon exist ... and might not have a use.

We've come full circle.

They wouldn't have passed the NASA's reliability requirements, which put too much emphasis on the turbopumps and number of nozzles. Thus, Even the RD-180 was considered completely unsafe if used on big numbers. But solids were OK since they are so simple, right?All part of the thumbs in the scale that SLS RAC process was. The only engine that might have passed their "safety" requirements were the F-1B. The AR-500 (as was called at that time) most surely wouldn't.And yes, I have an issue of claiming ridiculous safety levels and then killing the effective numbers with requirement creep and stack complexity. I'm on the KISS fence.

Is the configuration of SLS/Ares V (large hydrolox core with large solid boosters) mostly a result of the need to use existing shuttle infrastructure, or is it a reasonable HLV design in it's own right?

... the RAC-2 kerosene/LOX designs had lower long-term costs, but, critically, they would have cost more to develop because the needed engines didn't exist.

... and Aerojet/Rocketdyne, the maker of the RS-25, is building AR-1, at government expense, which was one of the "needed engines", that will soon exist ... and might not have a use.

We've come full circle.

They wouldn't have passed the NASA's reliability requirements, which put too much emphasis on the turbopumps and number of nozzles.

And that will look moronic in a very short while. Sort of like counting rivets in a submarine ...

Quote

Thus, Even the RD-180 was considered completely unsafe if used on big numbers.

Earlier there was a point by proponent about other rockets that take their core stage almost to "orbit." i don't think it's a crticial point to this thread but Arianne 5 has a similar set up and flies a similar profile, and its been an extremely successful commercial vehicle.

Also, going back to the RAC decision, the reason the shuttle derived approach won out despite the superior long term economics of a clean sheet or saturn based kerolox booster was that schedule was considered to be paramount. IIRC the shuttle derived systems was estimated to be available at least 2 years earlier, if for no other reason because they could skip the competitive procurement process and JOFOC the work to existing contractors.

At the time NASA was facing a growing realization after so many cancelled efforts that lifecycle cost "doesn't matter" - gov't funding profiles and year-to-year appropriations never allow for the kinds of funding peaks and long term decision-making that lead to efficiency in long term programs, so they decided instead to go for the option that got the nearest term success (equating that to political sustainability) and could be executed under a flat budget profile (political reality).

...At the time NASA was facing a growing realization after so many cancelled efforts that lifecycle cost "doesn't matter" - gov't funding profiles and year-to-year appropriations never allow for the kinds of funding peaks and long term decision-making that lead to efficiency in long term programs, so they decided instead to go for the option that got the nearest term success (equating that to political sustainability) and could be executed under a flat budget profile (political reality). Shuttle derived was the only solution that fit that criteria.

SLS is more Constellation-derived than Shuttle-derived. If schedule was really paramount, a DIRECT-like solution would have been faster to launch. We'd still be waiting on Orion though...

Seeing that Project Constellation was looking at 6 RS-68 engines for the core, which would have been less expensive and more powerful than RS-25, how did SLS get to looking at 4-6 RS-25 engines?Was it merely ablative(RS-68) vs. regenerative nozzle(RS-25) cooling?

Seeing that Project Constellation was looking at 6 RS-68 engines for the core, which would have been less expensive and more powerful than RS-25, how did SLS get to looking at 4-6 RS-25 engines?Was it merely ablative(RS-68) vs. regenerative nozzle(RS-25) cooling?

Thank you In Advance.

Being able to use RS-25 engines leftover from the STS program helps keep the cost down on the first four flights.

Seeing that Project Constellation was looking at 6 RS-68 engines for the core, which would have been less expensive and more powerful than RS-25, how did SLS get to looking at 4-6 RS-25 engines?Was it merely ablative(RS-68) vs. regenerative nozzle(RS-25) cooling?

Thank you In Advance.

Regen cooling and manrating were both big issues that would require a new RS-68 variant. Other major problem at the system level though is RS-68s crap ISP. This is why Ares V had to balloon so much once they switched from RS-25 to RS-68B, the lower performance means you gotta make the core stage way bigger to have the same effect (which also means you need to add more engines, even with RS-68s higher thrust, and the boosters have to be bigger to get it all off the ground). New engine development+more engines per flight+larger tanks+larger boosters+(likely) more complex ground equipment upgrades=more money

Seeing that Project Constellation was looking at 6 RS-68 engines for the core, which would have been less expensive and more powerful than RS-25, how did SLS get to looking at 4-6 RS-25 engines?Was it merely ablative(RS-68) vs. regenerative nozzle(RS-25) cooling?

Thank you In Advance.

As noted above, RS-68 would require some changes, although man-rating wouldn't be needed for Ares V.

The real reason Ares V needed 6 uprated RS-68 was that it's payload dwarfed anything SLS will lift. It was designed to put almost triple the mass of a SLS Block 1 payload to TLI. and almost double SLS Block 1B.

Seeing that Project Constellation was looking at 6 RS-68 engines for the core, which would have been less expensive and more powerful than RS-25, how did SLS get to looking at 4-6 RS-25 engines?Was it merely ablative(RS-68) vs. regenerative nozzle(RS-25) cooling?

Thank you In Advance.

As noted above, RS-68 would require some changes, although man-rating wouldn't be needed for Ares V.

The real reason Ares V needed 6 uprated RS-68 was that it's payload dwarfed anything SLS will lift. It was designed to put almost triple the mass of a SLS Block 1 payload to TLI. and almost double SLS Block 1B.

Thank you, I didn't realize there was such a designed payload difference between the various versions SLS and Ares V.

1)Is there any plans to modify a 2nd MLP for SLS use?I believe I just read one of the excellent NSF articles and the limiting factor of SLS flight rate comes down to a single available MLP.

2) During STS launches, the exhaust from the solid and liquid engines went in opposite directions (North/South). Am I correct with my understanding that for SLS launches, the MLP and pad are designed for both the Solid and Liquid engines exhaust will be deflected in one direction only?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1. None official, but its been considered. Doesn't really seem to make much sense. Once SLS is operational, the existing ML should be sufficient for about 3 flights a year, but production capability only exists for at most 2 (Michoud can build 2 cores a year, but Aerojet can seemingly only build 1 set of flight engines every 2 years), so on that front its unnecessary. The one thing a second ML would be good for is eliminating the minimum 3-ish year downtime between EM-1 and 2, necessary for refits for the larger upper stage on SLS 1B. But considering how long is takes to build a new ML (and the 3 shuttle era ones aren't suitable), they're probably past the point where this would result in any noteworthy schedule gain

Seeing that Project Constellation was looking at 6 RS-68 engines for the core, which would have been less expensive and more powerful than RS-25, how did SLS get to looking at 4-6 RS-25 engines?Was it merely ablative(RS-68) vs. regenerative nozzle(RS-25) cooling?

Thank you In Advance.

It was determined that the RS-68 would not survive the thermal environment of the proximity to the SRBs long enough to even reach MECO. Providing a regen nozzle for the RS-68 was not an option per USAF sources. Therefore the RS-68 was dropped from consideration and replaced with the RS-25, the next best option.

*edit* it looks like it's called ML-1. Back to the old Apollo nomenclature, I guess.

« Last Edit: 12/06/2017 03:47 PM by whitelancer64 »

Logged

"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

iCPS/DCSS uses a bunch of them for pressurant and attitude control propellant. EUS will use them as well, though its looking like they may go with IVF for those systems and only need a couple COPVs for storing high-pressure boiloff gas. AFAIK the core stage will use COPVs for pre-ignition tank pressurization as well, the same as on the Shuttle.

Could (ignoring the politics) the SRB's be replaced with 4 falcon 9 boosters?I was doing the math and 4 falcon 9 boosters would have just as much force as 2 SLS SRB's but I don't know if they would be reusable considering the speed they will be going at sep.Plus the power to weight ratio compared to SRB's.

« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 05:03 PM by Caleb Cattuzzo »

Logged

There is no strife,no prejudice,no national conflict in space as yet.Its hazards are hostile to us all.

Could (ignoring the politics) the SRB's be replaced with 4 falcon 9 boosters?I was doing the math and 4 falcon 9 boosters would have just as much force as 2 SLS SRB's but I don't know if they would be reusable considering the speed they will be going at sep.Plus the power to weight ratio compared to SRB's.

No, for many reasons. Politically it would be a non-starter (and SLS is a very political beast). Plus rockets aren't LEGOTM Elements and the resultant rocket would need substantial reevaluation, plus many components would need to be redesigned. Not to mention the "why bother?" aspect. Falcon 9 excels in two domains: Reuseability and price. But neither really help here: The cost of the design change would outweigh any benefit from having cheaper boosters, and reuseability is a moot point when SLS will have a flight rate of (at most) two per year, which won't be improved by the change (since solid rockets aren't the bottleneck in SLS's flight rate).

All that said, when NASA requested proposals for boosters for SLS, there was a proposal called Pyrios using liquid-fueled boosters and redesigned F1 engines.

EDIT: Chris Bergin did an excellent article on the proposal here that has a lot more details than the Wikipedia article linked above.

Could (ignoring the politics) the SRB's be replaced with 4 falcon 9 boosters?I was doing the math and 4 falcon 9 boosters would have just as much force as 2 SLS SRB's but I don't know if they would be reusable considering the speed they will be going at sep.Plus the power to weight ratio compared to SRB's.

Would require modifications to :1) the core stage to accept thrust from 4 attach points to the thrust beam, and to avionics to control the boosters.2) the booster structure to support the core on the ground and to lift from the top (FH boosters lift from the bottom).3) the VAB bay and MLP for the new engine locations, new holddowns, and to supply RP-1.4) NASA's risk assessment policy about flying 40 engines on a single rocket.

So if you change almost everything, sure. It could be done. Would it be cheaper or faster? Almost certainly not, at this point. SLS can only fly about twice a year because the entire infrastructure is set up for that and increasing that would cost tens of billions aside from the boosters. Reuse isn't worth it for 2 flights a year.

Would require modifications to :1) the core stage to accept thrust from 4 attach points to the thrust beam, and to avionics to control the boosters.2) the booster structure to support the core on the ground and to lift from the top (FH boosters lift from the bottom)3) the VAB bay and MLP for the new engine locations, new holddowns, and to supply RP-1.

I would remove the SRB beam and add core support to the ML, since the thrust beam has to modified already.

Out of technical curiosity, and in the light of the recent reported delays, a few SLS software technical avionics questions please. Some searching on this site, and Googl'ing, did not turn up the answers I was hoping for. Hence, any insights and pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.PS: I hope the Q&A thread is ok for this as I could not find an avionics discussion thread.

SLS Software Problems Continue"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."

jb

1) What programming language is the SLS avionics written in? ADA, C++, C or other? [1]2) What operating system is used for SLS avionics? VxWorks? QNX? Something else? [2]3) Has the SLS avionics been written from scratch, or partial re-used from the Shuttle software stack? I believe [3] might be a partial answer but it does not say whether the Ares stack was based on the Shuttle legacy software. Hence the question, thanks.4) What is the size of the SLS avionics software stack in relative terms to other avionics stacks of older rockets, shuttles or planes? Same size? Much bigger/smaller? 5) Assuming ADA was used, what would be the technical requirements these days to make a choice for ADA over C++? Although I am deeply familiar with embedded C/C++ real-time software in production environments and how to make it fast, reliably, extensible, maintainable, and responsive on modern hand-held devices, my ADA experience is much older. ADA was conceived in the 70s and to include tools like, e.g., TASKS for multitasking. The C++11 mutex as well as low overhead threads/pthreads in C/C++ are from a later date but which the same objective. Therefore, I am honestly curious whether these days there are still technical considerations to prefer ADA over C/C++ for avionics? Any insights?

I have some questions relating to version of SLS and the MLs they will launch from.

EM-1 is launching Orion atop SLS Block-1 from ML-1, ML-1 will then be modified for SLS Block-1B Cargo usage.ML-2 will be built for SLS Block-1B Crew from the get-go.

So after EM-1 and modifications, ML-1 will be used for Block-1B Cargo and ML-2 for Block-1B Crew. I have read that ML-2 would be then further modified for SLS Block-2 missions, if that ever happens.

1) Does that mean that once SLS has entered the Block-2 configuration, that only ML-2 is to be used for both SLS Block-2 Crew and for SLS Block-2 Cargo configurations?

2) Is there ever a scenario where SLS Block-1B would fly using 5 segment SRBs while SLS Block-2 using Advanced Boosters from different MLs, or does the switch to SLS-Block-2 for either Cargo or Crew for the other to go to Block-2 as well? (Like switch to Advanced Boosters for whichever system you want to go to Block-2 first, and runout the remaining 5 segment steel-cases SRBs on the system remaining Block-1B)

3) Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself here, but I'm assuming Block-2 Crew and Block-2 Cargo would require different ML's. Can SLS Block-2 Cargo and Block-2 Crew be launched from the same ML?

I have some questions relating to version of SLS and the MLs they will launch from.

EM-1 is launching Orion atop SLS Block-1 from ML-1, ML-1 will then be modified for SLS Block-1B Cargo usage.ML-2 will be built for SLS Block-1B Crew from the get-go.

So after EM-1 and modifications, ML-1 will be used for Block-1B Cargo and ML-2 for Block-1B Crew. I have read that ML-2 would be then further modified for SLS Block-2 missions, if that ever happens.

1) Does that mean that once SLS has entered the Block-2 configuration, that only ML-2 is to be used for both SLS Block-2 Crew and for SLS Block-2 Cargo configurations?

2) Is there ever a scenario where SLS Block-1B would fly using 5 segment SRBs while SLS Block-2 using Advanced Boosters from different MLs, or does the switch to SLS-Block-2 for either Cargo or Crew for the other to go to Block-2 as well? (Like switch to Advanced Boosters for whichever system you want to go to Block-2 first, and runout the remaining 5 segment steel-cases SRBs on the system remaining Block-1B)

3) Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself here, but I'm assuming Block-2 Crew and Block-2 Cargo would require different ML's. Can SLS Block-2 Cargo and Block-2 Crew be launched from the same ML?

1. NASA isn't sure they will build a second ML. Also, Block II is kinda a dream at this point, IIRC they haven't even decided on what boosters to use.

2. Refer to Q1, Block II is just a dream at this point.

3. SLS crew and cargo variants can almost certainly launch from the same ML, they might just need a new umbilical arm to power the payload, but that's really it. The Crew Access Arm and the service module arm(s) can just be retracted out of the way.

Prior to EM-1, will we see some sort of a Test Article be stacked in the VAB atop ML-1 then be moved to LC-39B?

If not, what is planned?

I believe the Core Stage Pathfinder will be stacked on the ML, but nothing else with it.

I don't know if it will go out to 39B, and take what I said here with a grain of salt, I think this may be old info and could be incorrect.

Doesn't the core stage require the SRBs to be stacked first in order to remain upright? Or will it be placed on custom GSE?

Correct. SLS is supported via the SRB on the ML vehicle support posts. The core stage pathfinder demo in the VAB will not involve stacking it on the ML or going out to the pad. The focus is on handling, transportation, & lifting operations and associated ground support equipment. e.g. barge offload at the wharf, lift/breakover in the VAB transfer aisle, lift over the HB-3 transom, etc...

Prior to EM-1, will we see some sort of a Test Article be stacked in the VAB atop ML-1 then be moved to LC-39B?

If not, what is planned?

I believe the Core Stage Pathfinder will be stacked on the ML, but nothing else with it.

I don't know if it will go out to 39B, and take what I said here with a grain of salt, I think this may be old info and could be incorrect.

Doesn't the core stage require the SRBs to be stacked first in order to remain upright? Or will it be placed on custom GSE?

Correct. SLS is supported via the SRB on the ML vehicle support posts. The core stage pathfinder demo in the VAB will not involve stacking it on the ML or going out to the pad. The focus is on handling, transportation, & lifting operations and associated ground support equipment. e.g. barge offload at the wharf, lift/breakover in the VAB transfer aisle, lift over the HB-3 transom, etc...

It will pretty much do what the orbiter mock-up Pathfinder did when it was at KSC, check out the facilities but not go to the pad.

Logged

"For Sardines, space is no problem!"-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Prior to EM-1, will we see some sort of a Test Article be stacked in the VAB atop ML-1 then be moved to LC-39B?

If not, what is planned?

I believe the Core Stage Pathfinder will be stacked on the ML, but nothing else with it.

I don't know if it will go out to 39B, and take what I said here with a grain of salt, I think this may be old info and could be incorrect.

Doesn't the core stage require the SRBs to be stacked first in order to remain upright? Or will it be placed on custom GSE?

Correct. SLS is supported via the SRB on the ML vehicle support posts. The core stage pathfinder demo in the VAB will not involve stacking it on the ML or going out to the pad. The focus is on handling, transportation, & lifting operations and associated ground support equipment. e.g. barge offload at the wharf, lift/breakover in the VAB transfer aisle, lift over the HB-3 transom, etc...

It will pretty much do what the orbiter mock-up Pathfinder did when it was at KSC, check out the facilities but not go to the pad.

So the first time the RSS was closed around a stack, a stack of flight hardware was in place? That's interesting, esp. considering the Vandenberg fit check with Enterprise.I have to remember that there will be no FSS at the pad and that the Launch Umbilical Tower(LUT) or whatever the proper term is for that steel gantry atop ML-1 for SLS, will all be fitted within the VAB.Thanks everyone.

Prior to EM-1, will we see some sort of a Test Article be stacked in the VAB atop ML-1 then be moved to LC-39B?

If not, what is planned?

I believe the Core Stage Pathfinder will be stacked on the ML, but nothing else with it.

I don't know if it will go out to 39B, and take what I said here with a grain of salt, I think this may be old info and could be incorrect.

Doesn't the core stage require the SRBs to be stacked first in order to remain upright? Or will it be placed on custom GSE?

Correct. SLS is supported via the SRB on the ML vehicle support posts. The core stage pathfinder demo in the VAB will not involve stacking it on the ML or going out to the pad. The focus is on handling, transportation, & lifting operations and associated ground support equipment. e.g. barge offload at the wharf, lift/breakover in the VAB transfer aisle, lift over the HB-3 transom, etc...

It will pretty much do what the orbiter mock-up Pathfinder did when it was at KSC, check out the facilities but not go to the pad.

But this picture is labelled "Enterprise at pad 39-A in 1979 at KSC", now I'm confused.

Prior to EM-1, will we see some sort of a Test Article be stacked in the VAB atop ML-1 then be moved to LC-39B?

If not, what is planned?

I believe the Core Stage Pathfinder will be stacked on the ML, but nothing else with it.

I don't know if it will go out to 39B, and take what I said here with a grain of salt, I think this may be old info and could be incorrect.

Doesn't the core stage require the SRBs to be stacked first in order to remain upright? Or will it be placed on custom GSE?

Correct. SLS is supported via the SRB on the ML vehicle support posts. The core stage pathfinder demo in the VAB will not involve stacking it on the ML or going out to the pad. The focus is on handling, transportation, & lifting operations and associated ground support equipment. e.g. barge offload at the wharf, lift/breakover in the VAB transfer aisle, lift over the HB-3 transom, etc...

It will pretty much do what the orbiter mock-up Pathfinder did when it was at KSC, check out the facilities but not go to the pad.

I have to remember that there will be no FSS at the pad and that the Launch Umbilical Tower(LUT) or whatever the proper term is for that steel gantry atop ML-1 for SLS, will all be fitted within the VAB.Thanks everyone.

OK, as of September 2017, 39B is a pretty "clean" pad.

The Saturn-V used a "Fixed Service Structure"(FSS) aka "Launch Tower", formally aka the "Launch Umbilical Tower"(LUT) and a Mobile Service Structure(MSS) as pictured below in picture #2. The Saturn-V FSS is attached to the stack in the VAB atop a Mobile Launcher, and a Crawler Transporter(C/T) carries the stack to the pad, sets it down atop the holddown posts and then retreats. The MSS is then positioned directly across from the FSS thus encapsulating the stack, the MSS is withdrawn prior to launch.

Then once we got into the Shuttle era, a Rotating Service Structure(RSS) was employed at LC-39-A&B. Which included a cleanroom into which the Orbiters payload bay could be accessed and cargo loaded.Following RSS retract as pictured in my 4th image, "The Angels wings have unfurled allowing the beauty within to strive for the Heavens." Who says iron and fire isn't a spiritual experience?

My question:Will the the SLS stack once at the pad for launch use a MSS similar to the Saturn-V/Apollo setup?

pics1) Launch Complex 39B as seen from aerial survey in September 20172)Saturn-V at the pad with FSS(left) and Mobile Service Structure(right)3) A Saturn-V launching during Apollo-4 in November 1967. As we can see the MSS is not in frame, FSS is present with umbilical disconnected and withdrawing.4) OV-Columbia sitting prior to STS-1 with the Rotating Service Structure withdrawn/open prior to launch in April 1981.

This is Pathfinder at KSC. First photo shows Pathfinder arriving at KSC on its trailer. Second photo shows the MDD being checked out while the third shows Pathfinder vertical in the VAB transfer aisle.

Thanks Dave S, when you said that Pathfinder was used for VAB checkout operations, I thought you were inferring that there was never a fit-check of any type that occurred out at the pad. I then came across the pic of Enterprise being checked out at 39-A and it didn't compute for me.

SO the "The core stage pathfinder demo in the VAB will not involve stacking it on the ML or going out to the pad." and "It (referring to the core stage pathfinder) will pretty much do what the orbiter mock-up Pathfinder did when it was at KSC, check out the facilities but not go to the pad."

So, is there any SLS program components, other than the core stage pathfinder or the SLS Core Stage-1 (C/S-1) that will be stacked on ML-1 and taken to 39-B for any sort of a test, be it a Crawler Transport test, or any sort of Pad based fit-check test?

My apologies for the difficult conversation via written text. An in person conversation whilst enjoying a beverage would be far more cogent.

Thanks Dave S, when you said that Pathfinder was used for VAB checkout operations, I thought you were inferring that there was never a fit-check of any type that occurred out at the pad. I then came across the pic of Enterprise being checked out at 39-A and it didn't compute for me.

SO the "The core stage pathfinder demo in the VAB will not involve stacking it on the ML or going out to the pad." and "It (referring to the core stage pathfinder) will pretty much do what the orbiter mock-up Pathfinder did when it was at KSC, check out the facilities but not go to the pad."

So, is there any SLS program components, other than the core stage pathfinder or the SLS Core Stage-1 (C/S-1) that will be stacked on ML-1 and taken to 39-B for any sort of a test, be it a Crawler Transport test, or any sort of Pad based fit-check test?

My apologies for the difficult conversation via written text. An in person conversation whilst enjoying a beverage would be far more cogent.

Pathfinder was never stacked, just like the SLS core stage pathfinder won't be. The VAB wasn't ready at that time to support any stacking operations. The EM-1 SLS will be the first time a full SLS stack will be at the pad. The Core stage pathfinder will just check out the VAB from a crane operations stand point.

Nothing else will be done. Nothing will be stacked on ML-1 for these operations. They'll take ML-1 to the pad in Augusthopefully for a more comprehensive fit check than what was done back 2011. Then it will go to VAB High Bay 3to complete the GSE outfitting and Validation&Verification (V&V) testing. Then it will simply wait until it's time to start EM-1 stacking operations.

The Saturn-V used a "Fixed Service Structure"(FSS) aka "Launch Tower", formally aka the "Launch Umbilical Tower"(LUT) and a Mobile Service Structure(MSS) as pictured below in picture #2. The Saturn-V FSS is attached to the stack in the VAB atop a Mobile Launcher, and a Crawler Transporter(C/T) carries the stack to the pad, sets it down atop the holddown posts and then retreats. The MSS is then positioned directly across from the FSS thus encapsulating the stack, the MSS is withdrawn prior to launch.

The Saturn-V used a Mobile Launcher that had a Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) on it. ;-). It was permanent.

Shuttle made a made a mistake by calling it an FSS, it was a FUT like every other pad.